#politics
1 messages · Page 31 of 1
Did anyone else think the confetti shooting last night was a gunshot?
sure seems like everyone on stage thought it was
Trump: "We need a recount, but only in battleground states or states that I've lost"
mhm, sure we do.
I'm sure that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he's losing them. Purely coincidental.
Why recount smth if there is already the right result?
Only need to recount where it's wrong
As often as needed till it is right
lol, exactly
pushing this out further can be dangerous, though. As I've read last night, now, this whole "voter fraud" thing is something the GOP has been planning for since the beginning of this year in order to utilize one of the nuclear options to keep Trump in power regardless of election results
so that's not good
we need to be firm about the results and ignore attempts to discredit them to avoid a lot of stalemate timelines
or timelines where Trump wins depite any and all results, which would be the worst case
by "wins" I mean "is forced back into the WH"
not really winning
I have confidence in the US to be able to protect it's democracy
That's sad
Trump has created a fantastic way to separate Biden votes from trump votes. All the GOP has to do is find every way possible to invalidate as many as possible
which they've been doing all year
one of the tactics has been to look for as many mistakes as possible on mail-in ballots and toss as many out as possible using those
things like non-matching signatures, dates in wrong places, etc
the longer this whole "count all LEGAL ballots" thing goes on, the more time they have to deploy that fuckery
the problem is, @near glen, we have some broken systems that can be abused to retain power despite election results. I'm not confident that Trump won't at least try to leverage them
and then cite "I actually won the election if you count legal ballots" as his reasoning for remaining in power
which many people will believe
my hope is they never happen
The main issue this all stems from is if the president doesn't hand off power, we don't really have any legal mechanisms to fight it
Even in Bush vs. Gore, eventually the hand-off happened
So we're in uncharted waters if Trump refuses
He could just kinda.. legally remain in power by simply never handing it off
It's more complicated than that, but that's the gist
That would lead to never ending violence
In some scenarios, it would be up to the VP to decide the winner- so, conflict of interest and all that
No sane human can want that
I mean
And I think that many of his party members wouldn't want that and fight it
It is a bit more complicated than never seceding
But ultimately that's the gist
It would be entirely legal
And it could be argued reasonably
It would be a series of small battles over time, defining new areas of the constitution with holes in them
That's the GOP's current plan, according to their internal conversations and memos
Interviews, etc
It would sound reasonable if you took it step-by-step, but ultimately the goal would be to retain the white house
Even with the legal battles trump will not be president by jan
Not those
Those legal battles mean nothing, but are intended to divide
This is what I'm referring to
Nuclear options that would be legal, and even reasonable to an extent
Some of which the GOP and Trump are already attempting to do
And trying to make it sound like he actually won
I hope that none of these scenarios come to pass. Currently, they're unlikely, but as more time goes on without Trump admitting defeat the more likely these become
And with the GOP actively going after a few of those scenarios, it's going to get muddy fast
The act of Trump simply not giving up his seat has the potential to destroy the entire voting system because it's unprecedented
And it seems likely that he will not
We can say "we'll just toss him out" all we want, but it's more complicated than that
That's a best-case scenario
Legally, as long as votes remain in contention in some way, we could be looking at another four years with him. And that's kinda the plan, for them
The saving grace, here, is that the Democratic party has been aware of all of this and preparing to fight it since at least the beginning of the year
But the GOP just got a ton of money from their fundraisers to "ensure a fair vote"
So this will be difficult
I’m sorry, but how could the US get so brainwashed?
I'm not actually sure how in the world the whole Trump thing happened to begin with
clinton is how
were Trump supporters always there, just looking for a Trump?
or were they manufactured by Trumpisms?
I have no answers
clinton is the answer
?
Trumpist -> A moronic dude who wishes to shoot everyone that votes non-republican.
when youre running against a demon spawn it isnt hard
Dafuq you on about?
iunno
alright, before I close this file, anyone have any Twitter handles they want to see on the dashboard?
Which dashboard?
just added Transition46 for obvious reasons
I'll get a back catalogue of as many tweets as possible from any new adds, as well
Twitter API limits to 35k most recent tweets or something
in Trump's case, was 6 months
(if anyone has data from earlier, plz point in direction, will look at adding to dashboard)
Doesn't he use facebook too?
¯_(ツ)_/¯
What is their limit+
am just looking at Twitter
Oki
according to VADER sentiment analysis, at least, SOMEONE looks like a negative-nancy
oh, yeah, Trump Jr. has very low scores across the board
that's a Twitter handle to avoid for sure
I mean, pretty obvious they're all deeply unpleasant tweets to read just by that few on the dashboard
I almost feel sorry for him, but he kinda did this to himself
is doing*
Big Tech
yyyyep
Sigh
that's a U.K. rag mag
of course Jr. RT'd it. lol
I'm laughing, but these are depressed laughs
You an american?
yeah
one of the morons?
wouldn't be following the election as closely if I weren't
I like to think I'm not a moron
also, [obj]
Visit http://TED.com to get our entire library of TED Talks, transcripts, translations, personalized talk recommendations and more.
If the 2020 US presidential election is close, the race could drag on in the courts and halls of Congress long after ballots are cast, says lawy...
uploaded Oct 26th, and he got it spot fucking on so far
then: "these things could happen"
now: "these things are happening"
this is a dangerous road
The only cheater in this election has been Trump lol
another saving-grace so far is that Biden is taking a solid lead
much harder to dispute, at least at the moment
Also Biden isn't going out there and throwing a temper tantrum
well, yeah, but that's irrelevant to actually (legally) stealing an election
but it's helpful, yes
"doing things within legal rights" to maintain power, in the U.S., can go quite far
that's a dangerous road
"well, Trump is president again, despite not winning anything, but it's all been legal" is not a good way to think about this process
not really the sign of a healthy election
I'm hoping that doesn't happen
but I'm waiving the "shit, red alert!" flags here because it very well could, and waving the giant red flags is how you prevent it
the intent is not to scare, but to inform. It's just a scary situation, and an increasingly-likely one
I want to frame this
5/6 Trump tweets today have been flagged
I should really add that into the dashboard somehow
if I can
I honestly didn't expect so many flagged tweets
I do hope liberals who say "now that we've won it's time to reach across the aisle to conservatives" can one day understand that it makes conservatives hate them more
163
1540
like, it happened even months ago, but it's so rampant now
I think social media has realized the only fix for the problem they cause is to remove their algorithms that decide what you see and that would make them less money so instead they're trying to keep the craziest bits under control so it doesn't look like we need to do that
Facebook and Twitter should go back to showing you things in reverse chronological order, Likes shouldn't be a thing, Trending shouldn't be a thing, etc
This kills the business model so the longer they can push off having everyone realize they're just addictive poison the better
@elder portal constitutional scholars agree with that being a possible way, think there is one other way they mentioned
With that video that is. Did you see me post it or did you find it yourself?
it's been posted a few times
I re-posted it for those who missed it
might have been you
Yeah, constitutional scholars have been warning about this for decades, the states can fix it, or legislative. In particular 3 scholars continually warned the government late 2019 and early 2020.
Yeah I posted it 2 or 3 times.
yeah, definitely needs more awareness
This way is based around the fact the constitution tells the House two conflicting ways to deal with contradictory electors. Needless to say if Republicans go along with this, all they have to do is contest it until the deadline.
I mean, assuming this all comes to an end and this shit doesn't get pulled, we'll all forget about in in 6 months
although we've been more progressive lately
so who knows
If the results are not confirmed by Congress (house and senate) before then, a contingent election is triggered anyway.
Of course
Considering Trump is contesting the election, which he should, if he doesn't take this path even though constitutional scholars laid it out for him, it would show a lot of character
Not that I'm saying he is great if he doesn't, just not THAT horrible.
Yeah, if he opts for not taking that path then at the very least he would be putting America before his own need for power
I would love to see that
Looks like the other Trumps in the WH are trying to convince him to concede
Everyone just wants this to be over
And to not start a civil war over it
Of course he has the right to do so
Is it the right thing tho?
This country needs a break, trump is denying it that
Yeah, his tweets and press conferences are just replies to questions the media asked
Right
Suuuure
He terrorized your country for 4 years, tear it in half, and you are surprised ppl just want him to shut up now that he lost?
They picked up so many seats because of McConnell
Supreme Court, not senate
Mis-read
I'm pretty skeptical when news orgs don't name sources, both with Obama and Trump.
There are also no quotes in that article from the sources, just a summary of what was said.
That was 2016 right?
don't name sources
Without anonymous sources, a lot more information would surely be hidden from the public? Like, I get that you feel less trusting when you can't blame anyone, but all information sharing is based on trust and if you can't trust journalists you're kinda screwed.
If the country needs a break, give the country a break
I agree, but being skeptical is smart.
Last thing we need to hear about is people making lists because they supported somebody more than somebody else
puts cat on the list.
McCarthyism moment
Additionally if you consider the fact they do not quote the sources at all, it's even more suspicious.
Are you talking about the Trump Accountability Project cat?
Where they list everyone who voted, funded, supported, etc Trump?
I wonder if calling for it breaks any laws, either way it's totalitarian-esque as shit.
If journalists didn't work with anonymous sources we'd never know what Nixon did
Keeping track of businesses and major donors makes sense, going after regular folks is weird
You don't know if those regular folks are diehard believers, people who only paid attention to the R next to the name, people who only like Trump because what they see on Facebook tells them they should, etc
alright, updated the dashboard to include favorites and retweets: https://stats.egg82.ninja/d/X2eIbGdMz/twitter?orgId=1
also a few small bugs fixed
like/RT data still importing, give it an hour
also included more handles, basically anyone notable on the campaign trail or close to the WH
Either whatever state he is in is really cheap or those ballots are obviously fake
Posting vid like this isn't helping anyone
People will believe anything lol
All it does is demonstrate your own intelligence 😛
If you think there is proper fraud, report to authorities, else just don't share bullshit like that
Those look like something made in Word and printed on cheap printer paper
It's fine though, because if there's any evidence it'll either emerge in court or there isn't any case.
Yeah, this could screw things up easily, far more than they already are
We don't need yet more "evidence"
But I tell you what though, that video is probably not going to considered very strong evidence in court lmao
Yes, this is why some ppl think the wave of rawsuits is a good thing. They will show that everything was fine, there was no systemic fraud, all allergerations are meaningless and trump will have a clean way to exit
You could also just go grab something like https://cdn.ballotpedia.org/images/b/ba/2020_Iowa_sample_ballot_(Scott_County).pdf#page=1 and print it off for such a video
Keeping investigations open as long as possible is the strategy
If there's no proper handoff, Trump keeps power regardless of the outcome
No he doesn't lol
That video doesn't help
See all the weird shapes around the edges of the one I linked? That's to align the scanner
Concession is not a mandatory part of transition of power.
His appear to be missing it which is why I said it looks like he made it in Word or something
But SCOTUS could presumably intervene
It is, somewhat. It's more complicated than that
Concession didn't even exist until the past century
It's always existed. The last time it didn't happen was in the 1800s
Concession speeches skip a lot and the rest becomes a formality
But if continued to be challenged, the GOP and/or Trump can do a lot
Concession speeches are recent, but there's no law or constitutional requirement for concession.
Please point me to where this exists beyond social precedent
Here's a good video explaining how @cosmic badge https://youtu.be/WZWRhLW7Y8w
Visit http://TED.com to get our entire library of TED Talks, transcripts, translations, personalized talk recommendations and more.
If the 2020 US presidential election is close, the race could drag on in the courts and halls of Congress long after ballots are cast, says lawy...
If he refuses to concede, his removal from seat of office will depend on the judiciary.
Not because he simply refuses to concede
It can, depending on how it plays out
And the judiciary will determine whether it has merit
In some cases it can even be up to the current VP to decide
The video is quite good
And relatively short
Yeah, that sentence lines up with your profile pic, not surprised at all
The video explains how it can happen, and there's an article I linked earlier that explains how the GOP has been working to actively make this happen all year
The GOP wants it to happen, they're open about it
Which is already bad
But it doesn't mean it'll actually happen
Yeah, we're kinda sprinting towards that result at the moment
Hopefully it doesn't happen
Bannon and Levin have called on state legislatures to send Trump electors no matter what their state voted for
It's unlikely enough now, but the more time passes the more likely it is
Exactly for reasons like that
Once the fraud argument is shut down within the legal system, his support should dwindle as well.
Along with the recounts showing no change in outcome.
I hope it is, but those videos don't help at all
We'll have to see
But so far this is playing out exactly how it needs to in order for Trump to legally retain power despite the election outcome
I hope he concedes soon
Before all of that does happen
If Biden is inaugurated it doesn't matter whether Trump concedes or not any way, unless they somehow stop inauguration.
But there's still plenty of time to go, too.
Yes I understand there are coordinated ways to subvert the election, it's not going to happen.
I don't want to be the red-flag waver, but the way this would get stopped is if people are aware. I'm just trying to help make sure it doesn't happen
Biden will be inaugurated on Jan 20 as laid out in the Constitution lol
I hope so
I wouldn't be saying any of this if I didn't already see it happening
And know that it's the plan for the GOP
Or if I thought it was unlikely
You should definitely watch the video
Most of us already feel pretty confident there is no credible fraud argument or that recounts would change outcome. Any other strategy is just grasping at straws with unprecedented technicalities.
It's not entirely, no
Republicans know what will happen if they start changing the rules to the game.
The idea is to toss as many mail-ins and later ballots as possible, because those are largely democratic
If they cheat to cling to 4 years more of power, they know what will happen after that.
I hope they do
The GOP is stupid but not that stupid
Some seem intent on doing so anyway
They won't get all 4 years
I'm hoping it's a minority
Problem is that, if things go well for this exploitation, it'll 1) be entirely legal and 2) sound fairly plausible
And 3) Democrats will start doing it.
It's a series of small steps and holes being filled in the laws and in the constitution, over time
Republicans and Democrats play the same game, it's understood that power transitions and the minority eventually becomes the majority and vice versa. GOP doesn't want to play that game.
Yeah, from what I've read the Democratic party is keenly aware of what the GOP has been up to all year
The GOP did run out of funding recently, but then Trump called for aid to "fight fraudulent ballots" and suddenly they're back up to full
Way over-full actually
It's going to be a hard fight, if it comes to that
I'm hoping it doesn't, and if it does then truth wins
The best case scenario is that Trump concedes
Do you think McConnell will restore the Senate filibuster if Dems get the majority in the GA runoff?
Turtles gonna turtle
Rulemaking can only be done at the start of a new session
The most frustrating man on the planet will likely continue to be frustrating
Although getting rid of the filibuster technically wasn't a rule change, it was saying a rule didn't apply iirc
I wonder if there would be ways for him to try to pull shit anyway, though
I hope not
McConnell is like a senate grandmaster, dude knows all the rules
The new Senate would be sworn in before the runoff happens though
You've gotta wonder, though
Anything he could do to.. I guess continue to be frustrating?
What's his goal, again? I don't really understand his motives
It seems to just be "own the libs"
what's the final count (excluding GA runoffs ofc) looking like for senate control?
He's definitely saved many seats for the GOP
Democrats have somewhere between 48 and 50, Republicans between 50 and 52
Otherwise, it seems to just be stuff that pisses the left off
If both runoffs go to the Democrats Harris breaks the tie and the Democrats control the Senate
Weird man
What do you think it'll look when sworn in?
I think it's more likely the runoffs are split though
Seems likely Republican for now
Ossoff seems way more popular than the other guy, I don't even remember his name
It'll be Republican when sworn in, 50 to 48
Ah
2 days later we'll know if it'll be 50/50, 51/49, or 52/48
Same
50/50 isn't really that bad either as there's a few R senators always willing to cross the aisle.
That's my guess
51/49 is still juuuuuust enough to get some shit done, for Biden
Not ideal
If it's 50/50 majority leader is determined by VP I assume?
But he might just pass some things
I don't remember that ever happening
So I'm not sure
Yes, if it's 50 50 the vote for that will tie and Harris will break the tie
lol
When WAS the last time the senate was blue, actually?
2010
Fuck
The election in 2010 pushed it red for the session starting in 2011
So only a couple years where Obama had full control 😛
House has also been red for some of that
Plus presidency
It's been a long time since I've seen blue up that high, really
Seen enough blue*
I think the House went red that same year
Yeah
Obama was handicapped in the later years
Got pretty much nothing passed
At least not though those two
I dream of a blue, then purple judicial branch
Need that blue to offset the red over the last decade
lol Trump's already filled a shit ton of judicial vacancies 😛
We'll either see a more blue or less blue legislature in the midterms though.
There will be an opportunity for Dems to secure a Senate majority, for sure.
I hope they take the opportunity by the balls and twist
Need a little force, sometimes :P
Republicans are super weak in 2022 for the Senate, only question is if the normal decline in votes for the party in the White House will happen and if it'll be enough to offset that
Super weak compared to the last decade*
Best they can probably hope for is to keep the status quo though, all but like 1 of the Democrats up for election that year are in safe states
Yeah, but Democrats underperformed in House elections compared to 2018, right?
Hopefully that's not a trend.
Red mapping didn't help Democrats at all, though they eventually caught on and are veeerrrryyy slowly turning that ship back around
That's about how all of this goes. New techniques are invented, and one side abuses it and the other eventually catches on and reverses it, then stalemate
Historically, the GOP are the ones inventing the new techniques
Usually because larger budget
Map is wrong in GA though, we don't know if it's red or not yet
But that's the runoff Republicans are likely to win so... probably
Could maybe pick up WI and PA?
Those and GA are the most obvious spots, yeah
Pray hard for Florida maybe, not gonna happen tho lol
I have two weeks of John Oliver to catch up on, yay :D
Not everyone votes for the same party for President and Senators but enough do it's a good bet unless polling says otherwise
2022 is far enough away some of those red states might be in play again too
I enjoy my comedy politics
And the Iowa election will probably not have an incumbent
At least 3 Republicans we know aren't running again in 2022, Iowa would make it 4
Those all instantly are up for grabs
I wonder what happened there
I guess to be expected though, a lot of normally red districts went blue in 2018
Incumbent advantage couldn't overcome the fact that those were solid R districts, it took a blue wave in the election after a Republican took the White House to win them
Remember, the party in the White House almost always loses seats in the House in the next election
Which also means 2022 could flip the House red and the Senate blue
Yeah, districts in Orange County weren't expected to stay blue
And I'm sure there were many other similar districts like that everywhere
Then again Trump no longer being on the ballot hurts Republicans too
So it's hard to say what future turnout looks like
Not even upset though, because at least House elections are democratic 😛
Gerrymandering...
Yeah true
That doesn't help
Representatives pick their constituents
I guess I was thinking more from a California perspective
CA is drawn by an independent commission, iirc, so yeah
Yeah it is
Gerry, also decidedly an asshole
Though if it weren't Gerry it would be a Johnmander or something
So, eh
A Johntopus
Probably
I love seeing districts where it follows a single street into a neighborhood, or even sometimes a single house
No Gerrymandering here, promise!
The software designed to make it easy to Gerrymander is purely for educational purposes only
Hi @BorisJohnson, we have a car park out the back if you'd like to use it for your announcement on free school dinners over Christmas?
2970
18706
Kek, is trump really celebrating the German vaccine and funded by bill gates for covid as his success
https://old.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/jqpib6/this_is_satan_if_he_existed/?ref=share&ref_source=link this guy...
Are such gatherings still allowed in america?
That's a covid hot spot if I ever seen one, lol
yeah many are ignoring it, sheriffs are refusing to enforce the rules on churches, places are getting exceptions for religious beliefs etc
Weird
given the news today about phizer
@autumn lotus I mean, trump had zero to do with this. Other than trying to bribe away the German company and got shit on by the EU
The tech comes by a german company, created by Turkish immigrants, funded by bill gates ^^
Apparently all the mDNA vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, CureVac) have one pretty huge issue: they have to be stored at -80C
If they at any time go above -80C you have 5 days to use them, can't refreeze
Well, we only know that for sure about the Pfizer so far but it sounds like it's common to the type of vaccine
I don't know how finding a possible vaccine is political
Not sure about the 5 days, aren't they preproducing already?
-80C isn't hard to do in any city with heavy industry (liquid nitrogen or dry ice) but doing it in a way that gets approval for vaccine storage is a higher bar
i sure as hell am not taking any vaccine, not gonna be a guinnea pig on rushed shit
And that makes things harder for distribution in rural areas or third world countries
You are not getting it anyways aikar, lol
You won't even get the chance to take the vaccine until spring, I bet we'll know a lot more about safety by then
there was that one vaccine a long time ago that had serious long term effects from it
The first ppl who will get it will be elderly and stuff
they haventh ad time toverify long term effects basket
Gulf War Syndrome? I thought they weren't sure if that was the vaccine or depleted uranium from the tank shells
i think it was swine flu
I highly doubt they will be rolling anything out this year anyways
Vaccines trials are usually 2 years for a reason though, yeah
In this case they're still doing the 2 year trial but aiming for emergency use authorization after their first reporting period
Not that it'll matter, by the time the trial ends everyone should have already had one of the vaccines anyway
If it's actually 90% effective, yeah
Their target was at least 50% and at that level you still need masks and distancing
basket.... ffs im questioning punishing you for that comment
What
?warn @autumn lotus Advocating people dying from failed vaccines is ok
imaBASKET#0001 has been warned. || Advocating people dying from failed vaccines is ok
We don't actually have anything but a press release for that yet
You know exactly what message he ment
We don't know what 90% means
imaBASKETToday at 12:24 PM
Well if there’s side effects then that’s the answer to global warning and over population
thats not ok sarcasm
You're walking a very thin line
You shouldn't have said it (editted by Amaranth)
Vaccine trials are normally like 5-10 years long right? Yeah I'd be skeptical too of a rushed vaccine.
Well, this is also a new vaccine tech and stuff
There has never been an mRNA vaccine approved before, yeah
We will see, they will do the testing and validate it, then slowly roll it out to larger groups, who are high risk
So this is a new kind of vaccine going through a rushed process
Till normal ppl like us can get the hand on it, it will be quite some time
So not only is it being rushed, it's an entirely new kind of vaccine. Great lol
Large enough sample size for a 2 year trial, sure
I wouldn't say rushed, it's not done anyways
For a 2 month one? It's alright to still have concerns
By the time I get to try it we'll have probably a few million people who have already had it so hopefully nothing has gone wrong but at least it'll be more clear
Yeah I think I also fall into that "wait for everyone else to get it first" category lol
Well, my point is that we will prolly be the last ones to get it anyways because of demographics and stuff
Oh that ballot burning thing last night was tweeted by Eric Trump and was already debunked by Virginia Beach before he even saw it to tweet
Yeah saw that
They were sample ballots
It's interesting that Trump is trying to take credit for the vaccine when his party has been pushing anti-vax crap pretty hard.
If it was the Moderna vaccine he'd be right, that one wouldn't be this far along without the US government
Yeah, but this one is funded by bill gates ^^
Sounds like it's a german company actually making it too
Yeah, biontech, german startup funded by bill gates
They were working on using mRNA for a hiv vaccine
iirc Moderna was making an mRNA vaccine for SARS
I hope they can get back to that HIV vaccine after this
Yeah Gates Foundation seems pretty dedicated to tackling HIV/AIDS.
Bill Gates will make sure that will happen
The other german mRNA company, curevac, the one trump tried to buy, is also partly funded by gates
Oh god John Oliver encouraged people to send furry porn to the Trump campaign's voter fraud evidence thing
It lets you upload photographic proof
He suggested giving them evidence of "ratfucking"
rip whoever has to review those
His example was cartoon rats having sex but yeah, you know what people are going to send them
For Pfizer to seek US authorisation for emergency use of its vaccine, it will need two months of safety data from about half the study’s 44,000 participants, which is expected late this month.
To confirm the efficacy rate, Pfizer said it would continue the trial until there are 164 COVID-19 cases among participants. Given the recent spike in US infection rates, that number could be reached by early December, Gruber said.
Oh so they really wanna push it out in the US this ywar? I mean, if you guys wanna run an extended trail on your population, I don't mind, but that seems a bit too fast for me
So they mostly just testing that it works, not so much about the side effects?
The side effects part comes from their 44,000 pool but efficacy results are coming from how many people in the US who are in their trial get infected and how many of those had the vaccine vs the placebo
So the earliest we could have FDA emergency approval is December which still is hitting the end of the year goal but basically guarantees any serious effort on distributing it doesn't start until 2021
Dunno if other countries are going to follow the FDA's lead here or have their own criteria
We have our own stuff
They are running trails in germany too
Not sure if german approval then means EU approval, but I would assume that
Yeah but for the normal approval process there are agreements that things approved by one government are rubberstamped or go through a much easier approval process in other countries, not sure if that would apply to emergency use scenarios or not
I guess even the FDA is basically rubberstamping from the start here though so probably not much use to share it
Ah, they are already in a rolling review approval process with the EU
EU authorities monitor study results continuously
Am reading more into this, they took 3 months from the day the genome was decoded and published till they had a vaccine ready for trails, that's insane
Also interesting, this would be the first vaccine approved by biontech
In 12 years
And the ceo still holds 18% of the company stock, is now in the top 100 richest persons in germany, lol
At least on paper I guess
Mrna vaccines are safer than all vaccines in the past
They dont contain the virus or its proteins at all
Its basically impossible to have any side affects other than your immune system reacting to it
Such a reaction might include a very mild fever
My mum talked about the swine flu's vaccine causing issues in folks for years after they took it (at least early variants?). Is she just reading/hearing shitty sources, or was that an actual issue?
vaccines could always have side affects
though for the majority of people they are mild or non existant
I'm confused. We spent the last umpteen years making fun of parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids because they have legitimate concerns over safety and side effects of all these new vaccines being made... Now we're in a pandemic and vaccines are starting to be made for it we're flipping to their side? 
I saw this on the news the other day
people apparently want them to be "thoroughly" tested
as in, years
which is quite ironic since they also want to come back to normality
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
i just want a doctor to tell me it's safe to have it and ill have it. i dont care what that timeframe looks like but that's my criteria. that doesnt mean i side with anti vaxxers lol
if you're young and healthy I don't think you'll be the target for early adopters
mRNA vaccine trials in the past have caused severe immune reactions
That's part of why Moderna didn't have one approved yet
The Moderna technology platform is to insert synthetic mRNA into living cells that would reprogram the cells to develop immune responses, rather than being created externally and injected as with conventional medicines. It is a novel technique abandoned by several large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that were unable to overcome the side effects of inserting RNA into cells.
Competitor mRNA biotech CureVac had a more spectacular experience in 2017 with the Phase II failure of its prostate cancer therapy, CV9104, which led CEO Ingmar Hoerr to say that "CureVac no longer sees mRNA as a stand-alone therapy", and "What we've learned here is that mRNA is not enough on its own .."
So I'm definitely waiting for more data on the large scale trials
well people will take those vaccines either because of fear or wanting things to return to normal and that will be your test data
not like everyone will vaccinate anyways
Under normal circumstances, common vaccines are entirely safe and concerns over them are unfounded
This isn't normal circumstances, and there is undisputed data about possible side-effects of them
At least these particular ones
Just on the idea of requesting (as allowed) recounts, or on the idea that he somehow won all those states and only is perceived as losing due to piles of illegal votes?
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Monday sided with and defended President Donald Trump, who has yet to concede the presidential election, saying that Trump is "100% within his rights to look into allegations of irregularities and weigh his legal options."
He defends his right; that is not the same as agreeing
Looks like Trump is starting to axe people he doesn't like
Defense secretary was just fired today
And FBI and CIA are looking like next
They all disagreed with Trump sending the military to protests
gotta get the loyalists in for the coup, you know?
Nobody can replace them until election is over
So currently, he's creating power vacuums
Replacements have been hired already, but I guess they can't actually start until it's all over
Fox News on Monday cut away from a press conference during which White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany accused Democrats of "welcoming" fraud and illegal voting.
"She is charging that the other side is welcoming fraud and welcoming illegal voting. Unless she has more details to back that up, I can't in good countenance continuing showing you this," Fox News host Neil Cavuto said on air as the network cut away from the press conference in Washington, D.C.
I never thought I'd see Fox saying something like that
Alright, props to them for it, then
Trump and his campaign have been raising allegations of fraud since last week that have yet to be substantiated.
Obvious sentence is obvious
yeah fox news is now an enemy of the right lol
man, thats one low blow, when fox news has more moral integrity than you
Full context she was talking about Voter ID and checking signatures etc.
And how the Democrats are allegedly against those things
You have to ask yourself, "why is this on the ballot? Who wants this, and what's their goal? Who would this potentially screw over?" Especially when looking at issues that would affect people's right or ability to vote
Signature verification is already fucked, and eliminates a lot of otherwise entirely valid votes
Which are mostly Democratic, because it's mostly them using it
voter id doesnt really help shit is why. you cant go to any random polling place and vote at every one. and registering to a new polling place is suppose to remove you from old, so if you still end up on both then someone goofed, and even then, you gonna go move 30 times just to get 30 votes?
Note that more heavily democratic areas actually do have many voter protections
and to vote for someone else, if that personthen tries to vote, it would be detected.
California, for example, uses an independent third party to draw boundaries to prevent gerrymandering
its just extremely hard to actually pull off voter fraud.
That's not the sign of a party trying to cheat
the biggest case your gonna see is SO's voting as their dead SO
Meanwhile in 2018... #DailyShow #FoxNews #Trump
Subscribe to The Daily Show:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwWhs_6x42TyRM4Wstoq8HA/?sub_confirmation=1
Follow The Daily Show:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow
Instagr...
and thats even miniscule
american politics r confusing
and checking signatures would be absolutely fucking horrible
why should I be blocked from voting just because I dont have a consistent signature?
but it gets intense
They already do, and it already is
Signatures change over time, and even if they didn't they can vary wildly depending on even just factors like current mood
the only invalid signature of mine is one that matches a previous one of mine
if it matches well to a previous, I didnt do it
Valid votes are rejected for non-natching signatures all the time
If you fail the signature verification you can cure your ballot either via showing up with an ID or giving them personal information over the phone
well NC Doesnt signature match i guess
Depends on the state
Well it's too late now but yeah
Some states are even nice enough to let you know it failed if you gave them your phone number or email when you registered or requested the ballot
Others you have to check
plus, when voting in person, they arent validating signatures there, do they in other states?
Really, the best solution is to do away with signature verification
It's really pointless
It's not great protection but it's better than nothing
It does more harm than potential good
It sounds great, in theory, but it's not that effective and eliminates far more valid votes
npr had a good talk yesterday on the theory of voter fraud
on how fucking insane of an idea it is, to think someones gonna get thousands of people to commit fraud and not a single person is gonna slip up and say something and get caught
Same with voter ID- sounds good in theory, but in practice it does more harm than good. For every fraudulent vote you might save you eliminate 100 valid votes
who the hell knows thousands of people in their state that they deeply trust, and be willing to commit a felony, and then coordinate that over multiple states?
Lol
Collusion is difficult, yeah
I think what Trump is trying to do is point the finger at the Democratic party more than voters
But I still don't know how that would even work
It's all nonsense
With no real supporting evidence
As mbax put it earlier, "gish gallop"
even them, how can they do it? it still requires accomplices in every way
Yeah, it would be incredibly difficult to pull off
most court cases were dismissed for hearsay too lol
you put too many false votes in one district, then that districts numbers look off and raises alarms
That's without even worrying about the NSA paying very close attention to the election
Which they always do
btw one point I didn't realize was that the exit polling was still only done for in person voting
FBI, CIA as well
Which makes sense but I didn't think about it
so now try to spread that over multiple districts, youd have to have multiple people colluding on it, lots of research into who you can even assign fake votes to
So Trump doing much better with various demographics can at least partly be explained by him doing better in general for in person voting
but amaranth those are the only TRUE voters!
mail in ballots arent voters, they are traitors! /s
Plus, again, we're assuming the alphabet soup agencies won't look into any of this internally as well
If they found something, we would absolutely know
The timing of this is pretty amazing. Nothing nefarious about the timing of this at all right? 🙄 https://t.co/nS5rkywKXT
14520
69934
Relying on "shadowy arms of the gov't" terrifies a lot of people, but they exist to serve the best interests of the country
bleh twitter embeds https://twitter.com/laurenpeikoff/status/1325768539370909697
BREAKING: Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine is more than 90% effective in first analysis, company reports https://t.co/i3Zgw6P54O
823
4970
Obviously they held it back until after the election to hurt Trump
Well, here's hoping this vaccine actually works
🤞
and doesnt give you narcolepsy
That, too
Or an autoimmune disorder
We'll see!
(That's what mRNA therapies are known for, iirc)
I will wait a little while, myself
i looked it up more, yeah it was Swine flu that had serious issue, it was giving people narcolepsy
Continue to mask up, social distance, etc
due to them rushing the vaccine
Until it's more tested
Tidal's new playlist is very much wearing their hearts on their sleeves
Screenshot (Nov 9, 2020 6:09:12 PM)
and @upper steppe theres a difference between being hesistant to guinea pig a brand new RUSHED vaccine that hasn't received thorough testing, vs decades long well tested and proven safe vaccines.
and @upper steppe theres a difference between being hesistant to guinea pig a brand new RUSHED vaccine that hasn't received thorough testing, vs decades long well tested and proven safe vaccines.
@weary obsidian i agree, but if you actually look at what most anti vaxxers are saying, its not the flu vaccine they're scared of, etc. its the new vaccines that are coming out, like when HPV was brand new, etc
the media just makes them look like idiots that hate all vaccines
anti vaxxers are against all the typical vaccines given to children
HPV vaccine went through a bunch of testing before it came out
and so will the covid one
Yeah, in about 2 years
The ones I've had the pleasure of interacting with, holding signs etc, seem to be against all vaccines
Unless that was also the media
gotta take a step back and look at more than what is being shoved in your face, sometimes
It makes sense to be nervous about taking one on emergency use authorization that hasn't finished testing yet
Yeah, you really do
Well, from personal experience they seem to be against all vaccines. I'm sure there's moderate groups in there, but the vocal part of it, at least, seems to not want any sort of vaccines at all
vocal minority, yup
The ones actually going out and talking to people and holding signs
Work on the HPV vaccine started back in the 80s, btw
Wasn't finished and through testing until 2014
err, 2006
Was reading while typing 😛
HPV vaccine gives safe and effective protection against HPV cancers.
idk when it started, all i know is when it first came out mid 2000s sometime a lot of people were skeptical about it, including me.. i didnt want to inject my own kids with some vaccine to some problem i've never even heard of. after some time, though, i can assure you all my kids have been vaccinated for it. but there was that period of skepticism, just like what i'm hearing here about covid. thats all i'm saying ^_^
it was the media and vocal minority that made it into a bigger deal than what it was
Yeah, the issue isn't mild skepticism
Main controversy I remember about it was people saying their kids didn't need it because they weren't going to have sex 😄
lol i'm not that ignorant
They didn't want to have the risk of the vaccine for something they didn't think would be needed
lol
Can't blame us for not liking the anti-vaxxers that we've seen or interacted with :P
i can, egg. because you end up hating a bunch more people that arent like that, under false labels
and oral sex rates sure is a very different number than 100 years ago
Language evolves. The anti-vax label has been given a new home
Maybe that'll change some day
Much like the R word was clinical
But right now, the R word is banned and anti-vax gives you all the fun stigmas that come with that label
I definitely wouldn't use it
and i'm actively trying to prevent that type of hate from spreading, egg.. you keep justifying it though
be part of the solution
^_^
Blame the evolution of language and/or society for that, not me
i blame every individual that participates
I'm not going to die on either of those hills
Either the R word or anti-vax
Gotta accept the new language sometimes. Yeet the old words
Welcome the new
and billy parents being skeptical over a vaccine doesnt make them an anti vaxxer
lets talk about the same subject, but a much less controversial topic, then. i ride motorcycles. i catch a lot of hate from people just because i ride one. why? because of the same thing we're talking about here..
Yeah, some skepticism is great
I can understand being nervous about taking a vaccine right after it comes out, I'd likely still do it though
But that's not the same as taking one before it's technically out
Just don't call yourself an anti-vaxxer unless you want to start a fight with a lot of people
Nobody said you did :P
anti vaxxers are the people who refuse even proven safe ones at the risk of their childrens health, for diseases that a child has no reason to be at risk of exposing self too
us boomers have a name for people like that, aikar. hippies
we are not boomers billy... lol
arent you mid 20s, aikar?
And yeet, apparently
we're boomers now. language evolves. remember?
no, im about to be 36
then you're definitely a boomer
i'm about to be 37
mid 20s is zoomers
we're boomers, aikar
Sometimes I wish language would stop evolving. I feel out of touch trying to learn new words
But it does
Shouldn't be
nah, teens
I guess they'd be early 20s, as in 20
1997 is the start of the zoomer generation
So some on the very edge might be
so some are i guess
Will be*
People on the right were really excited by that because it looked like they were going to be way more conservative than millennials and gen x
Then they got a couple years older and flipped
Each generation thinks they are more intelligent than the last and wiser than the next. It's a common fallacy
In reality, each new generation is usually far more intelligent than the last, less a couple
Those that grew up in the great depression carried an IQ deficit
For example
most kids are basing their politics off parents. but out of those who are willing to flip from their parents, that def looks to favor liberal policies
i asked my kids who they would vote for if they could vote. none of them really knew or cared :3
lol
I thankfully escaped the hell of conservatism in my family
Yeah, I didn't care about politics until the last few years
sigh
I blame Trump. Lol
i've never cared one way or the other, tbh. i still dont. its not like trump is my boy, or anything, i just liked him lol
Not a fan, personally
Which part in particular did you like? Because I assume it wasn't the racism, sexism, or inability to run a business anywhere but into the ground 😛
i was honestly hoping he would have shook things up a bit more, but he got cock blocked at every angle from both sides
It must happen but I never hear about teens and such rebelling against their liberal parents and voting for Romney
I'll feel better when I start work next year about who's leading the country
Trump was like white trash Obama
Not that it matters much to me, but it's nice
Newcomer to politics with big ideas who wants to shake things up
Which part in particular did you like? Because I assume it wasn't the racism, sexism, or inability to run a business anywhere but into the ground 😛
@restive seal i never saw any of that, tbh
And got nothing done 😛
How did you miss all three of those but still have any thoughts about him whatsoever? Those were extremely prevalent concerns.
How?
im not sure how you missed mr grab them by the pussy
Obama got nothing done because after 2010 he couldn't get Congress to pass anything, Trump got nothing done because.... uh, reasons?
They just let you do it, Aikar
How'd you miss him coming down the escalator and ranting about mexicans, or the later promise to specifically ban muslims?
what i did see is people labeling him things based on bad interpretations of things. like how people call him racist because he wants to make it harder to cross the border illegally, but they're ignoring the fact he's trying to make it easier to cross the border legally.. etc etc
i see a lot of misinterpretations like that
all over the place
I think the hope with Biden is we'll go back to a President who might not be reaching for the stars but knows how to politic and get Congress to pass things
How has he made it easier?
I don't think it'll happen
In any way?
He wasn't trying to make it easier to cross the border legally
oh he is @upper steppe ?
His team was working on every method they could to reduce legal immigration
tried != did
Cock blocked by his own hand-picked cabinet who he appointed and who have limited immigration in every possible way 😛
I mean.. billy
When was the last time you were grabbed by the pussy?
whats the bill #
idk why i'm being attacked right now, for fucks sake
He could have fired Steven Miller any time he wanted, wasn't even a Senate confirmed position or anything
i cant even just talk to you guys
Those words will haunt my nightmares for years, and I wasn't even the one affected or addressed
By "just talk" I guess you mean lie 😛
If we're out having beers I might let that slide so we can finish the pool game
fuck you
I just don't know how you missed, at the very least, the blatant sexism billy
Billy, you made statements that directly conflicted with factual evidence but you claimed we were misinterpreting. When that factual evidence includes advocating for sexual assault or denying safety to people fleeing violence in their home country that tends to get people a bit heated. :/
I genuinely am trying to find evidence of trump attempting to expand legal immigration. even used Duck Duck Go as republicans constantly acuse google of censoring anything pro trump.
I cant find anything. It's all results about him cutting legal immigration
"trump expand legal immigration" as query is about as clear of a search I can see?
lol
Lol
dont think the republicans were really ever against him after he was elected either...
i mean earlier this year didn't they decide to have their party platform be whatever trump wants?
pretty big endorsement i'd say lol
That came out looking really bad but really it was due to logistical failure handling having a convention during coronavirus they couldn't get everyone together to vote on a new platform
i mean, i doubt anyone of you is going to read this, but here it is https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/president-trumps-bold-immigration-plan-21st-century/
They originally were just going to use the 2016 platform but it had a bunch of language about how bad the current president was
ah ok
Couldn't change the language without the vote, only choice was to not have a platform
the thing about trump's ideas is people stop listening part of the way through, or something, and latch on to full border security and call him racist
idk
@upper steppe that's changing the system, but not expanding it.
idk this plan doesn't really tell me anything how he's going to allow more people to legally come in
If you ever dig in to the details Steven Miller was coming up with for how to implement that plan it was tuning the "merit-based system" so it would mostly only allow people from Northern Europe and getting rid of any other way in while not substantially expanding the slots available for merit
So the end result was going to be much less immigration and no more brown people
like the whole wall idea. i agree that that shit was ludicrous, but that seems to be where most people drew the line and stopped paying attention
@restive seal assuming you're still here, want to read that with us?
most of the bullet points there are a form of restriction to reduce amount of people in those bulleted areas
bad interpretation, then, aikar
We already have merit-based immigration
cause the whole idea is to make it easier to come over legally to stop people from doing it illegally
We also have a visa lottery and so called "chain migration", which is how Ivanka's family got in
right
The details on Miller's plan were to get rid of the visa lottery and "chain migration" without expanding the merit-based system to match existing total immigration
The White House statement on it almost says the quiet parts out loud but dresses it up in nice language
Oh and look, they killed off a large part of the merit-based system this year https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-sign-order-freezing-visas-foreign-workers-through-end-year-n1231782
Yeah, it's pretty flowery language
And Steven Miller says they were considering continuing that forward to future years as well in a second term
And going based on what Trump has actually done so far, it's all not good or even effective for the purpose of expanding anything
Not what he's been blocked from doing, but what he's passed or signed into law
idk what you want me to say. i cant spew back details with you because I simply do not know the details. all i'm trying to say is people are wrongly labeling trump a racist and other shit based on misinterpretations and half baked information. idk how this turned into a debate about what miller did or didnt do. trump says lets close the border, people call him a racist without listening to the rest of the plan ¯_(ツ)_/¯
It's ruthlessly effective at denying many people
I'm looking at what he's actually been able to do so far
Trump, I mean
What he has done
whether it was a good plan or not, idk. none of us ever will now, i guess
And it's not good
it was never implemented, nor will it ever be
so ¯_(ツ)_/¯
but to label him a racist...
ffs, come on
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Each has their own interpretation, I guess
Nobody knows the motives
But looking at what's been passed, I can guess
For Trump the rule is watch what he does, not what he says
Because he'll tell you he is giving you all the best parts of Obamacare but cheaper while trying to get the Senate to pass a bill that effectively repeals all of it
It he said what he wanted to do and then what he was doing and why they were different that'd be one thing but he'll tell you one thing while doing the opposite and making it sound like it's the thing he said
why are we talking about healthcare right now while i'm trying to prove calling him a racist is bullshit
That was the most obvious example I could think of other than saying he is expanding immigration while getting rid of it
Seems like he's been incredibly effective at denying immigration so far
🤦♂️ i guess you missed the part where he has to close the borders to make it easier to come across them legally... you're proving the very point I'm trying to make, which is that people stop paying attention at the first part and stick their labels on him
Also, he forced the CDC to give him power through the pandemic to force many of his laws through
Preventing legal immigration
So, yeah, he sidestepped the red tape entirely
Pandemic was a good excuse to cut all immigration for the year
think what you wanna fucking think
Saying they're looking at carrying it forward to future years is where you start to wonder what the real plan is
you know, for a bunch of people that claim to be against hate, you sure do spew a lot of hate towards trump and anyone that doesnt hate him too
i dont have to call him a racist to not like him
I'm providing my own viewpoint, here
he weakened american imperialism so he's bad
i'm not against people that dont like him. i'm against people that spew blind hatred and false labels
its fine to not like him or his views
but to spew hate... come on
I don't think we're the blind ones here...
Iunno where I've been blindly spewing any hate, here
i'm not the one hating someone i've never met because of accusations i didnt witness
It sucks that it seems like you're ignoring some obvious signs, but hey
I'm not here to judge
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`Д´)ノ︵ ┻━┻
people just need to relax and love one another, for real
too much hate in this world
billy advocating for an orgy, world prob does need one now though
everyone can stop thinking on politics and just have fun!
(adults only)
@knotty scaffold help lol
damn trying to pull his wife into it now
ー(  ̄▽ )_皿~~ ♪┏(・o・)┛♪┗ ( ・o・) ┓♪ 🍆 💦 😓
What did I get pulled in over here
Relating closing the borders due to a pandemic to his strong border security stance is not very logical.
Countries I know of that have closed their borders to non-citizens have done very well in the pandemic, arguably it is just correlation not causation.
I mean he could be racist, but he has the most support from minorities of any recent Republican. Hell, Joe could be racist, he's said so many racially curious things this year alone.
Also most often when someone tries to give examples from my experience, they take him completely out of context either because they just believe the media, or they are dishonest.
we definitely have not done well, in this pandemic though
can't even claim that Trump was "trying his best" because the evidence shows otherwise
I think closing the borders was not pandemic related, but the pandemic was used as an excuse to do so
the CDC also thought closing the borders would have little to no effect, apparently, but were strongarmed into giving executive power over to Trump who immediately used it to do so
which, uh.. Seems to have done little to nothing. As predicted.
~4% of the world's populations and 20% of the world's cases does not reflect well on our handling of the situation
"our" - I mean, Trump immediately turned masks, etc into a political issue and undermined everything experts were saying at every opportunity
so of course his supporters never wore them, because if he doesn't agree with them then why should they?
and apparently that's 71 million people or so
I say "our" loosely, as he was warned well in advance by many parties about this thing
The US could've handled it better, should've, being as wealthy as it is... but it's far from worst possible outcome. Per-capita the US could be doing much worse, for sure.
I mean, we could have literally everyone infected
but, uh.. We're one of the worst by a long shot, per-capita
No we're not lol
In new cases per capita we're better off than countries like France, Netherlands, Switzerland, UK
nope, we're one of the worst
I.. actually can't find worse
oh, wait
Panama is worse
per-capita
If we go by new cases per capita, deaths per capita, we're definitely not one of the worst.
We're not as well off as a lot of other developed nations, but there's many on there that are way worse.
he's meaning new cases
like in the past month
we're now equal with parts of europe
New cases per capita we're doing better than a third of Europe.
I was talking about our handling of it from day one, not over the last month or three
day one should have been better
our poor handling of it at the beginning of the year puts us above europe, but right now it's not as much of a disparity
Sure, hard to disagree we really delayed a proper response.
And the damage could've been minimized.
that was where I was coming from, yes
But as of this moment the US' handling of COVID is better than a third of Europe.
early response, which wasn't just lacking, or even nonexistant
Trump actively refuted evidence, publicly
it was somehow negative
I didn't think that was possible
Now if you look at total deaths per capita which reflects our poor handling early on, then you could say the US is in the top 10 countries for sure.
also just cases per-capita, since the beginning
in which we are in second place
a disease isn't just about deaths, but deaths reflect more poorly
US is actually among the best though right now in daily cases and deaths (averaged over 7 days)
Compared to other developed countries
(no thanks to Trump)
For sure, mostly states taking it seriously
yep
We haven't had any kind of real support at a federal level
On day 1 we could've nationalized mask production lol
also, apparently Obama left a disease-preparedness task-force/game plan for Trump at the very end. He predicted this exact thing would happen
and Trump immediately gutted it
lol
he damned near predicted the year
on mask production: Trump was warned about that when the disease was first heard of, where we wouldn't have enough PPE. From multiple people.
he ignored it entirely, aaaand here we are
And then came the false claim that masks aren't effective.
Right from our own government
now, one could claim that you can't predict the future, but at that point it was pretty damned clear
but zero shits were given
didn't affect him- until it did one day. lol to that, I guess
then he had the audacity to say that it was spread by democrats somehow, because they weren't getting sick
twitch
I have to wonder if he makes this shit up to protect his ego, or if it's enjoyable
maybe both?
US I think is 11th total for cases per capita, UK and Belgium are both higher, same for deaths.
cases per-capita since the beginning?
That's not counting countries that have been less than forthcoming, or not able to test as much as the US
I think so
The US tests more per capita than Belgium/UK I believe
I provided a link earlier with a graph, and it's looking like we're second
Correct
There were a couple of European countries that are worse off in total, for sure.
there's another graph on that same site which doesn't account for testing
the graph I showed does
10th